do you think general george patton could ended the war sooner in europe?

Question

during ww2 if he was not restrained by his superiors?

Answer 1

If cut loose, he would have gotten to Berlin long before the Russians. However, the battle to take Berlin was a brutal fight between the Germans and Russians. It may really be considered a good thing that the western allies not have to take Berlin.

Answer 2

I think the war would have ended sooner. As to Berlin the english and the americans were awaiting word from Eisenhower to go in. For some reason he let the russians take the city of Berlin.
From the documentary I watched the American soldiers said when they arrived in Berlin the Russians had taked control of the city and made threating remarks to them. This was the start of the cold war between Russia and U.S
This is why Patton didn't like or trust the russians.

Answer 3

i think of you have the question worded incorrect. Patton replaced into restricted by his superiors... to the area of being a decoy for the D-Day landings and for the 1st few months the Allies the place in Western Europe. He replaced into ultimately allowed to return to the battlefield in previous due 1944 and immeadiately had an effect and helped win the conflict of the Bulge and helped push the Allies quicker and futher then they predicted. If he could have not be restricted shall we've gained the conflict in europe faster. As an aside, Patton additionally had to tutor around and attack the Russians, which on the time replaced right into a political impossibility, yet in hindsight might have prevented the chilly conflict.

Answer 4

George Patton was the quintessential warrior. If unleashed, it is possible he might have ended the conflict sooner. His problem (with the brass, anyway) was that he had no use for politics. Just the opposite of Eisenhower who was essentially a clerk, but a good politician. It was Patton who tried to get high command to continue into the Soviet Union while America's military was geared up for war. He warned that they would become a bigger threat than the Nazis if left unchecked.

Answer 5

Unfortunately you are getting some answers from little kids like 'Bertacus" who don't even know who Patton was. He was a great Military General and I think had we been able to just give him most control throughout, he would have won it sooner and saved more lives. It was just sad that we had to appease Monty...Patton would have rolled thru Europe! Then they should of let him have a stab at Japan, we may not have had to drop the bombs. Oh well?

Answer 6

i think his rstraint was the best because scine he couldnt do d-day they kept him home and he was used to make the nazis think the were attacking at a different spot in france. they had fake tanks, entier regiments of fkae ppl with fake notes and serial numbers and the thing that made it believeable was that patton was to lead all these "ppl" so hittler thought that the us wouldnt put their best gen anywhere unless it was the invasion and when d-day hit hittler thought it was a fake invasion and sent more troops to where patton was soposed to attack. that is the story in a nut shell but if patton didnt do that it might not have been as believe able and we might not have take france.

Answer 7

No. If he wasn't restrained we would have overthrone Russia. Not that that would have been a bad idea.

Answer 8

No, he was incompitant, I could have ended the war 1 year eariler, He was a joke.

Answer 9

yes, he could have.

Answer 10

no